Thanks for the thought-provoking post Luka!LukaTheGOAT wrote:DraymondGold wrote:The argument for Hakeem has always been offensive postseason improvement more than defensive postseason improvement. That was the argument plenty of people made in the Greatest Peaks project, both this year and in previous years. If you'd like to go against that and suggest it's defensive improvement too, that's fine... but again, so far you lack much evidence at all lolAEnigma wrote:Ah yes, when faced with potential lack of postseason impact data outside the box score, we look at… regular season WOWY and fourteen game non-peak RAPM samples again.
You always get mad when I imply or even outright state that you are not being even-keeled when you do this type of analysis, but do you really not see the problem here?
To me, postseason Duncan should seem like the obvious analogy, but there too we encounter a player you tend to side against, so maybe the analogy is not one which comes to mind.
So the argument for Hakeem goes: defensive value (which again, is already captured in regular season RAPM/WOWY) + Postseason Offensive Improvement (which is relatively well captured in the BPM/PIPM, especially when much of Hakeem's offensive value comes from box-score-centric stuff vs off-ball value).
Am I saying it's perfect evidence? No. But I am saying it gives us a ballpark estimate of value...
This is pretty dang middle of the road "even keeled" analysis. I'm just saying you can use BPM/WOWY/RAPM/PIPM to get a ballpark estimate of a player, even when they're each noisy. People have been doing this on this board for years without trouble. And if this ballpark evidence suggests he's clearly sub-GOAT, then we're going to need stronger evidence suggesting that he is GOAT... which you've as of yet failed to provide.If Hakeem is clearly sub-GOAT in the evidence we have so far (in both value and goodness), then... it would take quite the change of situation to suggest that he's suddenly the GOAT.The titular question was whether a better situation would have or could have changed that.
In terms of value: While a change in situation might change "value" / how he performs with better fit, most people would say the 94/95 Rockets were great fits for Hakeem (even if they could have been slightly boosted in talent). I'm definitely open to a better situation improving his value in previous seasons like 89-92... but basically nobody has those seasons as GOAT anyway, so it would take quite an improvement in fit to raise those to GOAT level.
Regardless, most people don't think changes in situation greatly change goodness that much (short of learning/focusing on new skills under better coaching/development). So the "better situation improving goodness to GOAT-level" would be quite an up-hill battle against the general consensus... unless you think some sort of better situation could suddenly not make him the clear-cut worst passer of the Top 12. Personally though, I just have trouble seeing that.Ah, classic AEnigma needless passive aggressionTo be blunt, you either need to read better, or more generously, consider in your mind why you think “film analysis” would comfortably show clear quality distinctions between all-time bigs and all-time creators.
If Hakeem has a film analysis argument for best big, then he has a film analysis argument for best player. And as I said, I would be surprised for such an avid Backpicks consumer to have no sense of any such film argument for him as the best big.![]()
Well, if we're going down that route, allow me to use a frequent strategy of yours. To straw man this, your argument goes: "there's film analysis that puts Hakeem in the general tier of top bigs" -> "the film analysis puts him as the GOAT Center" -> "that puts him as the GOAT of all positions".
That's... a pretty poor argument. There's plenty of analysis that puts Hakeem in the general tier of top bigs, so I agree with the first statement. You reference Thinking Basketball's film analysis: this puts Hakeem near the top tier.
However, there is little analysis I'm aware of that puts Hakeem as the clear-cut GOAT big (and again, you have yet to provide any examples of such analysis). Thinking Basketball puts him below Shaq in film analysis (and further below Jordan/LeBron), and with little separation above Kareem. 70sFan, another expert in historical film analysis, has used film in the past to put Kareem's peak over Hakeem's. Hakeem is not GOAT level in this film analysis.
And despite your attempts to say "nobody can accurately compare Bigs and wings/smalls on film", plenty of people both in and out of the NBA have been doing this for years. And those people, more often then not, put at least one of Jordan or LeBron's peak clearly over Hakeem. Does it take care and attention to detail? Sure. Is it impossible to accurately compare bigs and wings on film? Far from it.Ah, my bad -- Thanks for clarifying! Point taken.You quoted my discussion with Luka, which was specifically framed around the contention that he would take 1988-93 Jordan over 1988-95 Hakeem.
Well, it may be perfectly easy for you to take an even more pro-Hakeem / anti-Jordan approach. But that's just your personal opinion. The question is whether that's a reasonable opinion. To do this, you need to provide evidence to show that such an opinion is defensible. A person has the right to think JR-Smith is better than LeBron lol... but to take them seriously, they should have some pretty compelling evidence to support such a claim.Playing your hand here a bit by emphasising how Ben is higher on Hakeem than usual (by your own perception, too high) while also framing this as “the most anti-Jordan approach we can take”. In fact I find it very easy to take a much more “anti-Jordan approach”.
Saying that Hakeem has the GOAT peak and GOAT career is far from a consensus statement. This isn't that far from arguing Hakeem should have ranked 7 spots higher in the recent Greatest Peaks project or 9 spots higher in the previous Greatest peaks project. This isn't far from arguing that Hakeem should have ranked 9 spots higher in the recent Greatest Careers project, and the project before that, and the project before that.
You suggest there's film evidence to make this a clear argument.... yet there was plenty of film evidence used in all 5 of those projects. Where is this pro-Hakeem film evidence??I disagree to various extents.
1. I think Hakeem absolutely has a peak (one year or three years) argument over Jordan.
2. I think had Hakeem been on a better team, that would also be a more common public take (even if Jordan’s scoring is ultimately too beloved for it to be a majority one).
3. I think Hakeem on a better team could have changed Jordan’s ring count, which would commonly reduce the public perception of his career while significantly spiking Hakeem’s.
4. I think there are good arguments that Jordan was not as impactful or innately valuable as the top two-way bigs, and while I personally tend to give him some amount of career legacy credit for his titles, that notion in itself could/would push him outside the top five in raw career, prime, or peak “CORP”.
5. While personally I could not put Hakeem’s career over Kareem’s or Lebron’s because of how I weigh longevity (or over Russell’s, for more abstract reasons), I think as an extended prime I would accept arguments for him at the top, and for many extended prime is more important than total career value.
So when the thread title asks if he has a chance at that status with better teammates improving his ring count, possibly decreasing Jordan’s own ring count, and potentially improving his own play and therefore “raw” value, yes, I think he absolutely would have a chance at that depending on the assessment and the person making the assessment. If he has a chance at being seen as better than Jordan, or as the #1 peak, then obviously he has a chance at being seen as the GOAT.
1. Disagree, but again would love to see any evidence to the contrary.
2-3. Would better team have made it more likely to win / improved public opinion on him? Sure thing!But there's quite the gap between Hakeem and Jordan, not just in public opinion (who we both presumably think over-value ringzzz) but also among NBA journalists, NBA players/coaches/organization-members, and NBA historical analysts including those on this board. An improvement does not necessarily mean he makes up enough ground to catch Jordan/LeBron... to do that, he would have to be sufficiently close behind. If you believe Point 1, sure than points 2-3 have merit. But again, I've yet to see you provide me any such evidence for point 1 besides your opinion.
4. Depends on how you value Jordan, but if you're significantly lower on him than the majority of this board, sure.
5. Not sure that pointing out Hakeem's substantial longevity gap beneath Kareem or LeBron makes his GOAT-case any stronger lol. But I'm glad to hear you at least agree Kareem and LeBron have better longevity
I think the argument for Hakeem's PS defense rising is potentially there.
Like from 88-94, Hakeem held opposing all-star centers 3.6 points per 36 minutes below their season averages, on efficiency with around a 3.5 rTS% drop in efficiency as well per Ben Taylor's GOAT Peaks vid. If you think PS series are won by stars, I could see an argument that Hakeem's defense is proportionally more important in the PS than the RS, because of the drop he can make stars have.
A direct example is
Patrick Ewing vs Hakeem Olajuwon in the 1994 Finals (IA per 75):
•) 19.6 points
•) 12.9 rebounds
•) 1.7 assists
•) 1.3 steals
•) 4.5 blocks
•) -10.7 opponent-adjusted rTS%
•) Rockets were a -4.9 defense (really good)
Ewing’s scoring in the 1994 playoffs before facing Hakeem:
▪️Averaged 23.1 PPG on 54% TS
How Ewing scored in the ‘94 Finals vs Hakeem: Averaged 18.9 PPG on 39%(!) TS
Hakeem shut down an elite center; you usually don't see 1 on 1 defense lead to stars getting locked down, but I think this is one of those special cases where Hakeem's defense was that special.
Ewing-ball leading to so many lost possessions possibly hurt the Knicks more than anything.
Also, per Ben's video, Hakeem registered at least 5 blocks in 35% of his playoff games from 1986 to 1984...and in 93 and 94, he had at least 5 in nearly HALF of his PS games. This suggests that perhaps 93 and 94 Hakeem isn't quite as far away from his peak on defense as some might believe; he likely had a lower motor in the RS these years than his 89 and 90 versions, but I am not sure how great of a difference there is in the PS.

Re: Duncan, he's unfortunately not included on that Man Defense graph from the Hakeem Greatest Peaks video. I wonder where he/KG place on that figure! If I knew whether the data came from, I'd be interested in calculating it myself...
Personally, I tend to value team defense over man defense. I wonder how his team defense changed RS -> PS in those later years. Lots of the stars in that era were bigs (it was called the Golden Age of Bigs for a good reason!)... does his defense also change how perimeter players shoot at the rim in the PS (relative to his earlier years)?
The one nice thing about Hakeem vs earlier all-time bigs is that we actually do have quite a lot of playoff games. Looking up "1994 rockets full game" on YouTube, I see 7 full games pretty quickly... 4 vs the suns, 1 vs Jazz, 2 in finals vs Knicks. Maybe I (or someone else) can try to track some of these.
I appreciate the thought process! Despite what it seems like from this thread, I'm definitely open to taking a more positive interpretation of Hakeem personally. Like I said a few pages back, as I see it, my rankings have some uncertainty for every player, and Hakeem's upper ceiling as a player is definitely high. I'm just mostly pushing back against the idea that Hakeem has a reasonable chance at being the GOAT... I personally don't find that very reasonable, given how the evidence we have in support of other players seems even more impressiveThat being said, I don't really think Hakeem would be the GOAT in a different situation. But information that I just provided, along with his offensive rise, is enough for me to put him ahead of Duncan all-time and possibly Shaq in terms of peak and in terms of career value, I would also have him ahead of Duncan and maybe Shaq....this is despite the plus-minus we do have suggesting he might be a bit below those 2.
